Cyrus Dugger

Supremacy Clause’s Case

For those of you who have been reading the comments section of Tort Deform over the last month, you have probably come across a commenter named Supremacy Clause. He has voraciously commented on Tort Deform posts, but his critique has been focused on one specific and surprising issue.

I've emailed with him saying that a more productive manner of engaging this community would be to put forward his argument in a large detailed substantive post, instead of many often hard to understand comments.

He took me up on my offer, and here's what he has to say (via email). You heard it here first....

Cyrus: I love the lawyer, the law, the American legal system. Here are my concerns.

1) The profession has the structure of a cult. That character has two prongs. The first is the nature of
the education. It isolates the recruit, subjects him to long hours poring over strange texts, mostly
meaningless gibberish. A hierarchy brow beats substantive dissent, as it announces its support of
dissent. The discipline system of the lawyer pursues the interest only of the hierarchy. It limits its
actions to only 4 narrow areas that promote the credibility of the business, and never enforces the
officer of the court ethos. The indoctrination is so good, no one here has felt it.

The second prong is the supernatural core. These core doctrines are perversions of Church Scholasticism.
Even the Church renounced these long ago. The sole locus of Scholasticist methodology today is in
American law. The lawyer believes the future can be forecast in torts. Minds can be read in the criminal
law. Not even the Church believed that. The Church believed God could achieve those supernatural feats,
not man, as the lawyer does. Then, strangers off the street, and on a jury, can detect the truth by their
gut feelings, when physiologic measures are banned from court as unreliable. The word "reasonable" comes
from St. Thomas Aquinas, via Henry of Bracton, and means, "in accordance with the New Testament."
"Reasonable" is ridiculous as a core term. It now also means, "in accordance with the subjective, arbitrary,
misguided belief of the precedent setting judge."

These supernatural, core religious doctrines violate the Establishment Clause. They are lawless in our
secular nation. Next, stare decisis violates the article in all our constitutions granting legislative
powers to the legislature. The judiciary, which is in the cult hierarchy, is in out of control insurrection
against Article I Section 1 and its state equivalents.

2) No one would care about methodology if the goals of the law were achieved. Every goal of every law subject
is in failure. So the criminal law, by its Medieval thinking, permits 5 million violent crimes. Almost no
contract can be enforced. Ebay method enforces almost all promises. Torts has done nothing to keep us safer.
Only technology has. Family law has orchestrated the destruction of the family. Admiralty law destroyed our
shipping industry. Name any goal of any subject. In failure.

3) The sole success of the profession has been the pursuit of the rent. The rent means the government's
taking money to give to others at the point of a gun. As a result, the lawyer profession has overgrown by
30%. The median income has been low compared to the skill level. The public has nothing but contempt for
the commodified lawyer.

These are entirely unacceptable, even under existing law. We will not have an atavistic, anti-scientific,
delusional cult in charge of the three branches of government. We will not have church derived doctrines
at the core of law in our secular nation. We will not have such a major, essential utility product, the rule
of law, in such failure, as if the lights randomly went on 1 hour a day.

If the law does not upgrade its effectiveness, and does not relinquish its Scholasticism, no lawyer
should be allowed on any bench, in any legislative seat, nor in any policy position in the executive
branch.

While I admire this blog's commitment to fairness, I believe that posting the irrational and convoluted ramblings of the person that refers to himself as "Supremacy Claus" lowers what is otherwise an intelligent discussion.